‘ DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 00211-09
26 October 2009
‘This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United
States Code, Section 1552,
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 16 October 2009. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of ‘this
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
your application, together with all material submitted in support
thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations,
and policies.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy on 24 February 1964, and served without
disciplinary incident until 5 April 1965, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for unauthorized absence (UA).
Shortly thereafter, you received the following NUJP’s: on 30 April
1965, for failure to obey a lawful order by drinking alcohol as a
minor; and on 26 October 1965 for UA and being drunk in public.
Additionally, on 27 January 1966, you were arrested by the civil
authorities for being drunk in public. Further, on 2 February
1966, you received another NUP for UA and on 19 May 1966, an NJP
for failure to obey a lawful order by drinking alcohol while
underage, destruction of government property, and possessing a
false identification card. You were recommended for an
administrative separation due to your misconduct, and you
exercised your right to request an administrative discharge board
(ADB). The ADB voted to administratively separate you with an
other than honorable (OTH) discharge. However, they suspended
the recommendation, pending any further misconduct for 12 months.
On 15 March 1967, you received another NJP for assault.
Therefore, on 5 April 1967, you were separated with an OTH
discharge and an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and the passage of time. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing
the characterization of your discharge due to your misconduct.
Finally, there is no provision in the law or regulations that
allows for recharacterization of a discharge code due solely to
the passage of time. Accordingly, your application has been
denied. The names and. votes of. the members of the panel will be
furnished upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the
Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material
evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board.
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a
presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00923 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 October 2012. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05791-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05359-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04685-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 19 December 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a four day period of unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit and dereliction of duty.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07257-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 May 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00066-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 5 February 1993, the ADB voted to administratively separate you for misconduct with a general discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01885-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 November 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11436-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ‘ application on 20 July 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00456 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 October 2012. On 28 September 1965, you received NJP for being UA for seven days. In this regard, the Board noted that you admitted to participating in homosexual acts under aggravating circumstances by receiving compensation.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04699-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this 76 day period of UA.